What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912276 about?

The tribunal order states: Craig Campbell and Patricia Nicole Rand to pay [The landlord/s] $941.38 from

How much money was awarded in case 4912276?

Cleaning: $128.00 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Living Room Curtain: $302.94 awarded to landlord; Main Bedroom Curtain: $290.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912276?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912276 about?

The tribunal order states: Craig Campbell and Patricia Nicole Rand to pay [The landlord/s] $941.38 from

How much money was awarded in case 4912276?

Cleaning: $128.00 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Living Room Curtain: $302.94 awarded to landlord; Main Bedroom Curtain: $290.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912276?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Arnold Street, Sumner, Christchurch 8081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4912276 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912276 — net $941.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Living room curtain	$302.94	Living room curtain
Main bedroom curtain	$290.00	Main bedroom curtain
Carpet Cleaning	$128.00	n the stained area, were cleaned at the same time. The tenant is ordered to pay $128.00.
Cook top	$200.00	Cook top
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$941.38
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$941.38

Craig Campbell and Patricia Nicole Rand to pay [The landlord/s] $941.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $941.38 Craig Campbell and Patricia Nicole Rand: $1,658.62

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 17 September 2024.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for $256.00. The tenant accepted that a stain (other than that referred to in the pre tenancy inspection report) had been caused during the tenancy. The tenant attempted unsuccessfully to remove the stain.

In my view, the stain has resulted in that part of the house not being reasonably clean and tidy. A reasonable contribution by the tenant would be a half share of the cleaning invoice as no doubt areas, other than the stained area, were cleaned at the same time. The tenant is ordered to pay $128.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The excess on each and every claim is $1,000.00 and so insurance is not relevant for the purposes of this order.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

The curtain in the main bedroom was damaged. The parties appear to accept that the damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord claim is for $460.00, being the purchase price of the curtain in 2021. The tenant is to pay the landlord $290.00. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The curtain in the living room was damaged. The parties consented to an order in favour of the landlord for $302.94. I consider the amount to be reasonable.

The glass cook top was damaged during the tenancy. The costs to repair, based on the landlord evidence is a minimum of $499.43. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The cook top was installed in 2018. The tenant is to pay $200.00. I have again taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful. Suppression of the landlord name only is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912276 — net $941.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Living room curtain	$302.94	Living room curtain
Main bedroom curtain	$290.00	Main bedroom curtain
Carpet Cleaning	$128.00	n the stained area, were cleaned at the same time. The tenant is ordered to pay $128.00.
Cook top	$200.00	Cook top
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$941.38
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$941.38

Order

Craig Campbell and Patricia Nicole Rand to pay [The landlord/s] $941.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $941.38 Craig Campbell and Patricia Nicole Rand: $1,658.62

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 17 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice for $256.00. The tenant accepted that a stain (other than that referred to in the pre tenancy inspection report) had been caused during the tenancy. The tenant attempted unsuccessfully to remove the stain.
In my view, the stain has resulted in that part of the house not being reasonably clean and tidy. A reasonable contribution by the tenant would be a half share of the cleaning invoice as no doubt areas, other than the stained area, were cleaned at the same time. The tenant is ordered to pay $128.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The excess on each and every claim is $1,000.00 and so insurance is not relevant for the purposes of this order.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The curtain in the main bedroom was damaged. The parties appear to accept that the damage was caused by the tenant’s dog. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord claim is for $460.00, being the purchase price of the curtain in 2021. The tenant is to pay the landlord $290.00. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The curtain in the living room was damaged. The parties consented to an order in favour of the landlord for $302.94. I consider the amount to be reasonable.
The glass cook top was damaged during the tenancy. The costs to repair, based on the landlord evidence is a minimum of $499.43. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The cook top was installed in 2018. The tenant is to pay $200.00. I have again taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful. Suppression of the landlord name only is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912276 — Cleanliness at 7 Arnold Street, Sumner, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912276 — Cleanliness at 7 Arnold Street, Sumner, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions